014 369 343 



Conservation Resources 
Lig-Free® Type I 






::;||;;i| [DOCUMENT No. 5.1 

';:''lfe;iv;;; F 187 



B7 



i;||;;;;,i; n298 

!;ii;';!|!|i;>;ii;i' Copy 1 



COPY 



m 



m 



>>'l:v'«N 






OP 



A CORRESPONDENCE 



BETWEEN 



aOlTER^OR THOJfi^S, of Jffarylandf 



AND 



GOVERNOR TAZEWEIiL, of Yir^iniay 

;;j;',;;;;if in rblation to 

TAe Unsettled Divisional Boundary Lines 



BETWEEN 



THE TIXTO STATES. 



BY AUTHORITY, 



:,;;| ANNAPOLIS : 

;;.i!f WILLIAM m'neir, PRINTER. 

;;l 1835. 



<' .o^ 






ISL^t^C 



M 



ocp 14= i^^^-' 



CORRESPONDENCE, &c. 



from Governor Thomas to Governor Tazewell, 



Execative Department, 

Annapolis, July 1835. 

I have the honor of transmitting herewith to your ExceU 
lency, a report of a special committee of the House of Del- 
egates of this State, conludiug with two resolmions, on the 
subject of our Southern and Western boundaries: which re-^ 
port and resolutions were adopted and passedby our Gene- 
ral Assembly at its last session. 

This document, as your Excellency will perceive, 1 for- 
ward to you by direction of the General Assembly. The 
clear and indisputable evidence which it will afford you of 
the frank, conciliatory and friendly disposition of Maryland 
towards Virginia, and of her^deteriDinatjon, in the assertion 
aiid maintenance of what she believes to be her rights, to 
stand upon those right alone— disregarding all puncillio 
and unsubstantial forms — and the full and explicit manner in 
which our views on the whole subject in controversy are 
therein selforth, relieve me from the necessity, in further 
compliance with the directions of the General Assembly, of 
y Bmplif)ingtho!ie views. 

I content myself with expressing my concurrence with 

the General Assembly, and with respectfully, but earnestly, 

jiyiting your E^iccellency to a lene^al of negotiation upoi) 



the subject, and to the acceptance of the proposals made by 
Maryland in the resolutions of December session 1831, here- 
tofore transmitted to your department. 
I have the honor to be, 

With the highest consideration, 

Your Excellency's most obt. humble serv't. 

JAMES THOMAS. 
His Excellency 

Littleton W. Tazewell, 

Governor of Virginia, ■: 

Richmond. 



From Governor Tazewell to Governor Thomas, 



Executive Department, 
September 6, 1835. 
Sir: 

1 have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of yourlet-* 
ter, post marked the 21st. ot August, inclosing a report of a 
special committee of the House of Delegates of the State 
of Maryland, dated the 28th of January last, on the snbject 
of the Southern and Western boundaries of that State. 

In replying to this invitation of your Excellency to a re- 
newal of the negotiation upon this subject, I am under the 
necessity of repeating what I said to you in my letter of 
the 30th of May 1834, that I have no authority to enter in- 
to any new negotiation in regard to this matter. The act 
of the General Assembly of Virginia, passed on the 5th of 
March 1833, (a copy of which was transmitted by my pre- 
decessor Governor Floyd, to His Excellency Governor 
Howard, on the 24th of April 1833,) is still in full force. 
In pursuance of the authority given to him, by that act, Go- 
vernor Floyd appointed three commissioners, to meet such 
Cumraissioners as might be appointed for the same purpose 
by the commonwealth of Maryland, to settle and adjust by- 
mutual compact between the two governments, the western 
limits of this State and the dividing and boundary line be- 
tween it and the commonwealth of Maryland. These commis- 
ioners have never been required to perform the duties assigned 
to them by the act referred to, because no information has ever 
|)icen received by the government of Virginia, of the ap»- 



pointment of any such commissioners on the part of th^ 
State ol Maryland. Indeed, an inspection of the act re- 
ferred to, and of the resolutions adopted by the General 
Assembly of Maryland at their December session 1834, 
(supposing these resolutions to be still in force,) will make 
it verj obvious, that until some lurther legislation is had on 
the part of the State of Maryland, no Ubeful action could 
be expected from the joint commission, even it it was now 
completed. 

Under such circumstances, your Excellency will not fail 
to perceive, that the proposition tendered by the Getieral 
Assembly of Maryland, in their resolutions adopted at their 
December session 1831 , and accepted, in effect, by the Gene- 
ral Assembly of Virginia, by their act passed on the 5th of 
March 1833, having been alieady carried into operation by 
the Executive of Virginia, so far as depended upon this de- 
partment of its government there now remains no matter for 
me to discuss, or about which to renew a negotiation al- 
ready completed, so far as this commonwealth is concern- 
ed. Therefore, all I can now say to your Excellency is, 
that I will submit your letter, with the docume)/tit enclosed, 
to the General Assembly of Virginia, at their /next session. 
In doing so, it will probably be satisfactory t6 that body, to 
learn, whether the first of the two resolutions with which 
the special report (inclosed in your last ietter) concludes, 
has been yet carried into effect. Your letter gives no infor- 
mation upon this subject. 

It is not necessary for me to decide at this time, what in- 
fluence the last resolutions of the General Assembly of Ma- 
ryland may have, upon those adopted at the December ses- 
sion of that bod)' in the jear 1831. Bat as the latter were 
constructively repealed by the resolutions adopted after- 
wards On the I4lh of March, 1834, (a copy of which was 
communicated to me by your Excellency in your letter of 
the I7th of May, 1834,) it seems to be a question well 
worthy of consideration, whether the repeal of these latter 
Resolutions, will so operate as to revive those of 1831. 
Should this not be the case, the Resolutions, a copy of which 
you have recently transmitted to me, will have no other ef- 
fect, than, while repealing those adopted in 1834, to signify 
to the government cf Virginia, the earnest desire of the State 
of Maryland to close and finally adjust the questions pending 
between the two States, by amicable nogotiation. This desire 
is reciprocated by the government of Virginia, as all its acti 
since 1796 (when such a wish was first expressed by the go* 



^einment of Maryland) abundantly prove. The mutual an* 
puBciation of such wishes, however, will do but little to 
giye them effect, unless accompanied by the suggestion of 
«ome feasible plan by which they may be carried into exe- 
cution. Such a plan was proposed by your resolutions of 
1831, adopted in effect by our act of 1833. But if this 
plan is now abrogated, the subject must be commeuced anew, 
I presume; and the Executive oi Virginia is not, certainly, 
?ind that of Maryland is not, probably, clothed with any au- 
thority to take any step in reference to it, at this time. 

I hope J shall be excused by your Excellency, for the ex- 
pression of a doubt as to the extent of your authority to en- 
ter inlp atiy new negotiation upon tlie subject of the bounda- 
ries of the States of Maryland and Virginia, at this time, 
jBul indepen?Jently of the duty imposed upon all, to enquire 
into the authority of those who propose to treat with them 
as agepts, the report of the committee of the General As- 
sembly pf Maryland adopted by that body during its De- 
cember session 1831, and transmitted to Governor Floyd by 
His Excellency Governor Howard, in June 1832, by ex-* 

f)re8sly repudiating the authority of the Executive of Mary- 
and to act as it did under the statute of 1818, and conclude 
^pg from thence that the State of Maryland was in no way 
pomrijitted or bound by the acts of these its alleged unautho- 
rised agents, must ever warn the government of Virginia, 
of the necessity of using caution in determining upon the 
validity of the powers possessed by any other such agents; 
claiming to enjoy like authority, 

Although I nave not the power, certaiply, to renew any 
ppgoljatipn upon the subject of the boundary between the 
States of Maryland and Virginia; and although I must be 
permitted to doubt the extent of the present authority of 
your Excellency to open any new negotiation in regard to 
this matter; yet, if it may contribute to the attainment of the 
fnd considered so (Jesirable by both States, it will give me 
pleasure to coqiniunicate vvith you, at any time, as to the 
pbjects of o^r several governments and the best means of 
accomplishing them. Such communications, although un- 
thorised, i^iay enable us to present the same plan to the Le- 
gislatures of our respective Slates, and so to expedite as well 
^s tp facilitate the ^nal determination of the questions de- 
pending between them. - 

The great difficulty which has impeded the adjustment of 
these questions hitherto, arose (as it seems to me) from the 
^jjferent views entertained by the two governments in regarcf 



to the precise objects which they respectively desired. Uri» 
fortunately, these views were expressed in terms so broad anc^ 
general as to be susceptible of different interpretations, and 
being communicated by one government to the other^ eacH 
seeing the proposition in a different light, proceeded tO dct 
according to its own construction of the import. To thia 
source may be ascribed all the misunderstanding arid mtich 
of the initation that has been manifested in the coUrse Of the 
negotiation, as a reference to its history will plainly shevr. 

To avoid a!t such difficulties hereafter, your Excellency,- 
I am very confident, will feel no difficulty in stating, dis*' 
tinctly, the precise object concerning which the State of Ma-* 
ryland wishes to renew her negotiation with the common- 
wealth of Virginia, at this time; and the partictllar mode by 
which Maryland now proposes to conduct this negotiation^ 
if renewed. Nor will you have any hesitation in comnauni- 
eating the source from whence you derive authority to pro- 
pose the renewal of the negotiation, Upon thei basis of the 
resolutions of Maryland adopted by its Assernbly it thfeif 
December session 1831. Such a communication od yoUt 
part, will enable me to present the subject to the Geneml 
Assembly of Virginia mUch more distinctly than I can Uovr 
do; aud if it contains any matter which may seem to mC ob- 
noxious to just objection, I will frainkly inform you what this 
is, with my reasons for entertaining such a(n opinion. A dis- 
cussion like this, although it may not be strictly authorised^ 
yet if conducted with candor, will bring the attention of ih6 
Legislature of either State, to the true points in contest be- 
tween them, and must contribute greatly to the amicabfe' set- 
tlement of such a contest. On my part, I promise yotf the 
most frank exposition of all my opinions ih regard to it; and 
I do not doubt thnt your Excellency will adopt i simWatt' 
course, 

1 have the honor to be, 

With the highest consideration, 

Yonr Excellency's obedient servant, 

LIETLETON W. TXZEW^tU 
To His Excellency, 

James Thomas, 

Governor of Maryland, 

Annapolis. 



8 

From Governor Thomas to Governor TazeioelL 



Executive Department, 
Annapolis, Maryland, Oct. 16, 1835. 
Sir, 

I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your 
Excellency's communication of the 6th ultimo, in reply to 
one from this Department in July last; enclosing to you a 
report and resolutions on the subject of our southern and 
western boundaries, adopted and passed by the Legislature 
of this State at its last session, and inviting you, by the di- 
rection of the General Assembly, to a renewal of negotia- 
tion on that subject. 

Your Excellency has been pleased, whilst disclaiming all 
authority on your part to enter into the negotiation which I 
had invited, to express doubt of my authority "to'enter into 
any new negotiation upon the subject." Now, it seems to 
me that if, as your Excellency states, you have no authority 
*'to enter into any new negotiation in regard to this matter," 
it was wholly unnecessary to propose any enquiry or doubt 
as to mine for giving the invitation. But as your Excellen- 
cy has thought proper to question »ny authority, and as it is 
alike against my principles and inclination to assume re- 
sponsibility in so important a matter, I beg leave to call 
your attention to ihe report and resolutions which accompa- 
nied my invitation, and which not only authorised me, but 
made it my duty, to propose to your Excellency to re-open 
negotiation for the final adjustment of this long pending 
controversy, upon the basis of the resolutions of the General 
Assembly of Maryland, passed at December session, 1831." 
This was the precise object and purport of my communica- 
tion — in strict and literal compliance with the authority and 
request of the General Assembly. 

Your Excellency states that the act of "the General As- 
sembly of Virginia, passed on the 5th of March, 1833, (a 
copy of which was transmitted by my (your) predecessor, 
Governor Floyd, to His Excellency, Governor Hoivard, on 
the 24th of April, 1833,) is still in force," but that "the 
commissioners appointed by Governor Floyd, in pursuance 
of that act, have never been required to perform the duties 
assigned to them by the act referred to, because no informa- 
tion has ever been received by the government of Virginia, 
of the appointment of any such commissioners on the part 
of the Slate oi Marylandj" ftnd your Excellency has been 



9 

pleased to add that "indeed an inspection of the act referretl 
to, and of the resolutions adopted by the General Assembly 
of Maryland, at their December session, 1831, (supposing 
these resolutions to be still in force,) will make it very ob- 
vious that, until some further legislation is had, on the part 
of the State of Maryland, no useful action could be expect- 
ed from the joint commission, even if it was now com- 
pleted." 

In noticing this part of your Excellency's letter, I cannot 
withhold the expression of my surprise and regret that in 
expressing your opinion of the necessity of further legisla- 
tion belore any useful action can be had upon the subject^ 
(in which opinion I fully concur,) that you should have look- 
ed only to Maryland for such further legislation. Why may 
not the difficuhy in the way of "Useful action upon the sub- 
ject,^' be removed by legislation on the part of Virginia? If* 
the fair and impartial propositions of Maryland contained in 
the resolutions of December session, 1831, had been, in 
fact, as you slate they were "in effect," accepted by Virginia, 
and correspondent provisions had been made by that Slate, 
it is manifest that no difficulty could have arisen to impede 
a final adjustment of the controversy. And as it seems to 
have been the intention of Virginia, according; to your Ex- 
cellency's view of the matter, to accept the pfopositions of 
Maryland, but that intention was so imperiectly manifested 
by her act that your Excellency, very justly, considers it 
"obviors that further legislation Is necessary, before any 
useful action can be had upon the subject,^' can there be 
a doubt but that it is from Virginia the necessary fuithef 
legislation ought to be looked for? 

In reply to the doubt which, your Excellency has expfesi^- 
ed, whether the resolutions of Maryland of December ses-' 
sion 1831, are still in force, I persuade myself it is only 
necessary for you carffully to examine the resolutions of 
December session 1833, which have been repealed, and 
those of December session 1834, recently iransmiMed, to 
remove your doubts, and satisfy you, not only that the rego-' 
lutions of D'Cemher Session 1831, are now in force, but that 
they never have been, constructively, or otherwise repeal- 
ed, or even suspended. So far from being "constructively'* 
repealed by the resolution of the 14th of March 1834, 
(December session 1833,) it is expressly provided by one 
<?f those resolutions "that all adversary proceedings on thd 
2 



10 

part of lliis Stale, against the Slate of Virginia, shall cease 
at any time before suit brought or final judgment, when 
that State shall accept the overtures of Maryland, made by 
her resolutions oj December session 1531" — ilius guarding 
against a construction of their repeal, by the re-ofFer of them 
to the acceptance of Virginia. There has been no time 
since the p;issage of the resolutions that it would not have 
been the duty of the Governor of Marjland, upon receiving 
satisfactory evidence of llie acceptance of the propositions 
they con'ain, and that the necessary Legislative provisions 
had been made by Virginia for conducting and concluding 
the negiliaiion, and the final settlement of the controversy, 
Mpon their basis, to have appointed commissioners to con- 
duct the negotiation on the part of Maryland. Had I 
deemed the act oi the General Assembly of Virginia, pass- 
ed on the 5th of March 1833, an acceptance of the pro- 
positions contained in those resolutions, and found it to con- 
tain reciprocal provisions for bringing the controversy to a 
close, I should have taken pleasure in promptly exercising 
the contingent authority vested in me, and been highly grat- 
ified in being instrumental in the final and amicable adjust- 
ment of this long pending controversy. But I couid not, 
and cannot, yet at least, agree with your Excellency that the 
Virginia act, was, (whatever the intention may have been,) 
an acceptance of the propositions contained in our resolu- 
tions. On the contrary, I was reluctantly constrained to 
consider it a decided rejection of our propositions, and also 
as indicating an indisposition, on the part of Virginia, to 
treat upon the subject on a fair and reciprocal basis — "as an 
undertaking in truth absolutely to settle and pronounce 
against our claim." Such also was the view taken of that 
act by our General Assembly at December session 1833, 
and which caused the passage of the resolutions of that ses- 
sion upon the subject. 

The report recently transmitted to you has made you ac- 
quainted with the grounds, motives and objects of our Leg- 
islature in repealing the resolutions of December session 
1833, and authorising a reopening of negolintion. It is 
most obvious from the whole scope and tenor ot the report 
that, to afford )our Excellency an opportunity and fit occa- 
sion to explain the law of Virginia, and shew that we had 
misapprehended its terms, and (hat it was i'^iended as an 
acceptance of the propositions contained in our resolutions 
of December session 1831, (which it was supposed you 



11 

considered ycKirself authorised and prepared to do,) wis an 
important object and persuasive motive for re-opening nego- 
tiation upon the subject. I confess my disappointment and 
regret at hnding, upon a perusal of your comiounjcation, 
that you have not thou^hl fit to favour us with the expected 
explanation. You have, indeed, stated that the law of Vir- 
ginia was, "in effect," an acceptance of our propositions, but 
you have made no attempt to support this statement, by a 
comparison of their terras, or otherwise; and as jou have 
declared that you have "no authority to enter into any new 
negotiation in regard to this matter," of course, your Ex- 
eellency can make no authorised explanation on the subject. 
I shall, however, receive with great pleasure any exposition 
your Excellency may think proper to give of the act in 
question. But candour requires me to declare that, what- 
ever may have been the intention of that act, unless provi- 
sion has been made for the umpirage preposed, in case of 
disagreement of the commissioners, I liave no authority to 
continue negotiation upon the subject, or to appoint com- 
missiocers to meet those appointed on the part of Virginia. 
In such case it will be my duty — which I shall take pleasure 
in performing — to submit the correspondence between us, 
and the whole subject, to the General Assembly of this State 
at its next session. 

I agree with your Excellency that "the mutual annuncia- 
tion of wishes to close and finally adjust the questions de- 
pending between the two States by amicable negotiation will 
do but little to give them effect, unless accompanied by 
some feasible plan by which they may be carried into exe* 
culion.' I am happy, also, to find that your Excellency 
considers that "such a plan was proposed by our resolu- 
tioiis of December session, 1831." I however regret that 
I feel bound in frankness to say, that I have looked 
in vain to all the acts of the government of Virginia 
since 1796, for proof of any- thing more satisfac- 
tory than reiterated antiunciation of "wishes" on the sub- 
ject, unaccompanied by the suggestion of any "feasible 
plan" for carrying ihem into eflect; and I am constrained yet 
10 consider that the plan proposed by Maryland, which you 
acknowledge to be "feasible," has not been accepted by 
Virginia. 

,i 

Ycu have been pleased to say that "the great difficulty 
which has impeded the adjustment of these questions 
hitherto, arose, as it seems to me, (you,) from the different 



12 

views entertained by the two governments in regard to the 
precise objects which they respectively desired," and that 
^'unfortunately those views were expressed in terms so broad 
find general as to be susceptible ot different interpretations; 
andbe.ng communicated from one government to the other, 
each seeing the proposition in t different light, proceeded to 
act according to its own construction of its import;" and 
that "to this source may be ascribed all the misunderstand- 
ing and much of the irritation that has been manifested in 
the course of the negotiation, as a reference to its history 
will plainly shew." 

I have no other means of ascertaining the views and ob- 
ject of either government on this subject, than is afforded 
by their respective official acts and correspondence in rela- 
tion to it. Looking to these, I confess myself at a loss to 
understand the views and object of Virginia; but those of 
Maryland have been stated with such precision and clearness 
that, but lor your Excellency's communication, I should 
have supposed it was impossible they could have been mis- 
understood, or that any doubt could be entertained about 
them. I do not pretend to any authority to explain them, 
but I know 1 cannot err in stating that Maryland desires an 
amicable settlement and establishment of the boundary lines 
between herself and Virginia, upon the basis of their re- 
spective rights; — that she claims the establishment of her 
southern and western boundaries, under her charter "where- 
soever they may be found;" — that the main question as to 
those boundaries is, where is the first tountain of the river 
Potomac? This question, as well as all others relating to 
the subject, she desires and has proposed to settle by amica- 
ble negotiation, upon the "feasible plan" of reference, in 
case of disagreement in the progress of the negotiation, to 
an impartial umpirage. 

The resolutions of December session 1831, so often re- 
ferred to, points out the mode proposed, at this time, for 
conducting the negotiation and finally settling the contro-r. 
yersy; and I will not allow myself to doubt but that this 
f 'feasible plan" will yet be accepted by Virginia, and the ne- 
cessary reciprocal provisions be made by her, for carrying it 
into effect. 

1 inclose to your Excellency a copy of a letter received at 
^hiR department from the Attorney General of this State, 
showing that he promptly complied with the duty imposed 



IS 

upon him by the first of the two resolutions inclosed to you 
in my last communication. 

With the highest consideration, 

I have the honor to be 
Your Excellency's most 
Obedient humble servant, 

JAMES THOMAS. 
His Excellency. 

Littleton W. Tazewell, 
Governor of Virginia, 
Richmond. 



Copy of the letter of the Attorney General^ enclosed in the 

foregoing. 



To His Excellency, 

The Governor of Maryland. 

By a resolution of the Legislature, passed at their 
December session 1834, the Attorney General of this 
state u as directed to discontinue all proceedings instituted 
by this state against the commonwealth of Virginia|in the 
Supreme court of the United States, in relation to the south- 
ern and western Boundaries. 

In June last I obtained an official copy of this resolution, 
proceeded immediately to Washington, and filed it in the 
office of the supreme court with written directions thereon, 
to the Clerk of that court to discontinue the suit and all 
proceedings thereon, as directed by the said resolution. 

1 heievviih send to your Excellency a copy of the bill 
which is discontinued under tJie above lesoluiion. 

Yours, with the most respectful consideration, 

JOSIAH BAYLY, 
Attorney General, 

Oct. Ist, 1835. 



14 

From Governor Tazewell to Governor Thomas. 



Executive Department, 
Richmond, October 20lh, 1835. 
Sir: 

In acknowledging the receipt of your Excellency's letter 
of the 15th instant, justice to myself requires, that I should 
promptly correct a misapprehension which you seem to en- 
tertain, as to the doubt expressed in my last, in reference to 
the extent of your authority to enter into any new negotia- 
tion upon the subject ot the boundaries ot our respective 
states, in suggesting this doubt, I certainly had no idea of 
questioning your authority "for giving the invitation" to do 
so, as you suppose: but merely to call your attention to a cir- 
cumstance that I thought might possibly have escaped your 
notice; and which, if the invitation should be accepted by 
those who alone have the power to accept it, might tliere- 
after prevent or greatly procrastinate the proposed negotia- 
tion. You tell me that 1 was wrong in such a supposition; 
and it is not for me to decide, at (his lime, as to the suffi- 
ciency of your argument to prove that your own construction 
of your own powers is correct. 

Having said this, perhaps there is no necessity for adding 
more; especially as your Excellency has informed me, that 
unless provision has been made in our act of March 5th 
1833, ior the very special, singular, and perhaps unnecessa- 
ry umpirfige prescribed by your resolutions of 1831, in the 
possible case of a disagreement between the commissioners, 
you have no authority to continue the negotiation further. 
The act referred to contains no such provision, certainly. 
Hence, with this declaration of your Excellency before me, 
it would be useless to say more upon the subject, than to 
repeat the assurance I have formerly given you, that I will 
lay the whole correspondence between us, before the next 
General Assembly ot Virginia, and will submit to them the 
propriety of acceding to iiiis peremptory sine quanon. 

In conclusion, I will take the liberty ot saying to your 
Excellency, t'.iat when I availed myself of the occasion pre- 
sented by your first letter, while announcing to you njy own 
want of authority, to conclude any thing in regard to its 
subject that might be obligatory upon Virginia, to propose 
a frank and informal correspondence between us in refer- 



15 

ence to that matter, 1 was actuated by the wisli of becom- 
ing the instrument of facilitating the termination of a con- 
troversy, which I then believed would not be continued, if 
its precise object could be distinctly stated and correctly 
understood. To effect this, obvious considerations seemed 
to me to suggest tlie avoidance of any reference to any past 
proceedings. Your Excellency thinks differently however^ 
and while tendering tome the last resolutions of your Legis- 
lature, repealing tliose adopted in 1833, you refer specially 
to the proceedings which accompanied tliese repealed re- 
solutions, to shew that the opinion of the body which adopt- 
ed these proceedings concurred with your own in this par- 
ticular. I will forbear any other remark upon this, than to 
say that I regret it very sincerely. 
1 have the honor to be, 
Very respectfully, 

Your obedient servant, 

LITTLETON W. TAZEWELL. 
To His Excellency, 
James Thomas, 

Governor of Maryland, 
Annapolis. 



From Governor Thomas to Covernor Tazeicell. 



Executive Department, 
Annapolis, Oct. 31st, 1835, 
Sir, 

I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your Ex- 
cellency's communication of the 20th, in reply to mine of 
the 16th instant, on the subject of the unsettled boundaries 
between Virginia and Maryland. 

As your Excellency has di cHned making any exposition 
of the Virginia act of the 5Ui of March 1833, there seems to 
be no necessity for any further correspondence between us 
on the subject, except to correct misapprehensions on either 
side. With this view, I feel it mj duty to state, that in 
frankly making known to you my construction of the limited 
and cortingent nature of my authority on the subject, my sole 



16 

object Was to satisfy the doubts you had expressed in rela- 
tiou to it, and to assure you of uiy desire and intention to 
keep strictly within the pale of my power. Nothing, 
certainly, was further from my mind than to submit, on be- 
half of the state, the proposals contained in the resolutions 
of December session 1831, or any part of them, as a "per- 
emptory sine qua non,^'' My authority is derived from, and 
limited by, the resolutions of December session 1831 and 
1834, and it your Excellency will take the trouble to turn 
to the fourth resolution of 1831, fyou will at once see the 
contingent nature of that authority, and that provision for the 
proposed umpirage, on the part of Virginia, in case of dis- 
agreement, is one of the contingences on which it depends. 
Had I attempted, by any proposal or act of mine to com- 
mit the state, without satisfactory evidence that the contin- 
gencies alluded to had occurred, your Excellency might 
well harefquestioned my authority. 

I cannot acquiesce in your description of the propos-* 
ed umpirage as either singular or unnecessary. Your 
Excellency must be too familiar with recent instances in 
the diplomacy of the United States where provisions have 
been for similar umpirages, to render it necessary for me to 
be more specific in citing precedents to rescue that proposed 
by Maryland to Virginia from the imputation of singularity. 
As to the necessity of such provision, I feel confident that, 
looking to the claims and pretensions of each state, it must 
be admitted, that a disagreement between commissioners 
appointed by the respective states, is not merely possible, 
but in the highest degree probable; and that it is this provi- 
sion for a contmgent umpirage which renders "feasible" the 
plan of the resolutions of1831 for a final adjustment of the 
controversy. 

Your Excellency has expressed regret at my having, in 
my last, referred to past proceedings on this subject. In 
doing so, I but followed the example of your Excellency, 
and confined myself, strictly, to such reference only as wa» 
necessary to answer the statements and suggestions which 
you had made in relation to them. 

In conclusion, I beg leave to assure your Excellency of 
my own desire to see this controversy terminated by amica- 
ble and friendly negotiation, upon the feasible plan of ©ur 
resolutions of December session 1831, or upon any other 
fair, reciprocal and equally feasible plan which Virginia 



It 

tnay propose; and I cannot doubt, but that such is the desife 
of the people and all the other authotities of Marylarid, 
I have the honor to remain, 

With the highest consideration, 
Your Excellency's, 

Most obedient humble servadtj 
JAMES THOMAS^ 
His Excellency, 

Littleton W. Tazewell, 
Governor of Virginia, 
Richmond. 



From Governor Tazewell to Goiemor Thomast 



Executive Depaftment, 
Richtoond, November 10, 1836< 
Sir, 

Your letter of the 3d ult., the receipt of which I hare 
now the honor to acknoAvledge, contains some remarks, to 
which I am constrained to reply, notwithstanding your de->- 
claration, that there is no necessity for any further corres* 
pondence between us on the subject to which it relates. 

You say that I have declined making any exposition of 
the Virginia act of March 5, 1833. I am not aware that any 
such exposition has been sought by your Exeellency, io any 
of the various communications with which I have been hon* 
ered by you: nor that any doubt has ever been expressed by 
you, as to the intent and meaning of that act* It is true^ 
that in you letter ot the 15th ult, you informed me, that 
unless this act had made provision for the umpirage propel-* 
ed, in case of disagreement of the commissioners, you had 
no authority to continue negotiation upon the subject, or to 
appoint commissioners to meet those appointed by Virginia. 
But even if this information was intended to intimate any 
doubt on your part, as to the character of the act in this 
respect, this doubt must have been removed, by the prompt 
exposition I then gave you, in stating that the act contained 
no such provision, certainly. A most careful re-examination 
of all our correspondence, does not furnish me with an inti- 
mation of any other doubt stated by your Excellency. Nay^ 
80 far from containing the exprei»sion of a wish for any eM" 



18 

planatioii on my part, your letter gave me to understaod dis- 
tinctly, that you did not consider me as empowered to make 
any authorised explanation on the subject. 

Your Excellency corrects an error into which you sup- 
pose I have fallen, in considering your submission of the pro- 
posals contained in the resolutions adopted by your state at 
the session of its Legislature in Dec. 1831, as a preremp- 
tory sine qua non', and you inform me^ that your sole object 
in refering to these proposals, was but to shew the extent of 
your own powers. Now, po far as Virginia is concerned in. 
the matter, it is of little consequence, for what reason, or 
by what means, this preliminary to any negotiation was dic- 
tated to her. In any case, the terms prescribed constitute a 
condition precedent to th.e negotiation. If Virginia had ex- 
pressed to Maryland, an earnest desire to ctose and finally 
adjust a question depending between them, by amicable 
negotiation, Virginia would have no cause to complain^ 
certainly, it Maryland should annex to her acee|>taDce of such 
an oyerture, any condition she might think proper. But 
the case is altered when Maryland gives the invitation, and 
annexes to it a condition preliminary to the acceptance of 
this her own invitation. Nor is it worth the trouble to cn- 
4|uire, whether this condition is prescribed by Maryland 
directly, or results from the nature of the powers with which 
she has seen fit to clolbe her agents. 

The peculiar character of this condition, thus sought to be 
prescribed, also claims some notice. Virginia has in vain 
SJalled upon Maryland to slate to her, prescisely, what it i» 
•she claims, and upon what foundation her claims rest.. 
Without answering these enquiries, except in the most gen- 
eral terms, Maryland says to Virginia, I propose to submit 
this yet unknown question, involving unknown interests, to> 
the umpirage of an unknown arbiter, who is to be governed 
by no prescribed rules, and may be guided by any unknown 
evidence and unknown arguments hereafter to be exhibited. 

Your Excellency supposes such a proposition to be couo^ 
tenanced by precedents to be found in the Diplomatic his- 
tory 'of the United States. If this history, or that of any other 
state, either ancient or modern, furnishes any similar exam- 
ple, I am certainly uninformed where it may be found. 

You describe this proposition also, as equal and recipro- 
cal. But when the relative situation of the two high parties 
is considered, it would be difficult to shew in what the recip- 
rocity consists; and as to its equality,a reference to any mere 



19 

chance would present this quality also. But something 
more than equality and reciprocity, f if that could be found 
in this proposition^ is generally considered a$ desirable in 
the establishment of any forum; and stated would pay but 
little respect to their own rights or character, if they were 
prepared to submit any and every claim which may be pre- 
ferred against them, to an unkijown umpirage, offefedJ>y the 
claimant, before the precise nature of the claim has been 
announced, or its character and extent defined. 

Your excellency expresses, and I doubt not feels, aii 
anxious desire to see this controversy terminated, by any 
fair, recipocal and feasible plan, which Virginia may pro- 
pose. But it will at once occur to you, that Virginia is now 
precluded from claiming any thing of Maryland; and until, 
Virginia is informed of the precise nature of the claim ad- 
vanced against her, and ot the proofs and arguments to 
sustain it, she can torm no just idea of the nature of the de- 
mand, and is so incapacitated from suggesting any plan for 
its final adjustment. 
1 have the honor to be, 

With the highest consideration, 
Your Excellency's, 

Mosi obedient and humble servant, 

LITTLETON W. TAZEWELL. 
His Excellency, 

James Thomas. 

Governor ot Maryland, 
Annapolis. 



From Governor Thomas to Governor Tazewell. 



Executive Department, 
Annapolis, Dec. 24 1835. 
Sir, 

Your Excellency's letter of the 10th nltimo, in reply to 
mine of the 31st of October last,| has been received, and, I 
regret to find, imposes upon me the necessity of still further 
continuing our most unpromising correspondence. 

When, in compliance with a requisition of the Legislature 
of this state, I invited your Excellency to a renewal of nfc. 
foliation, on the subject of the unsettled boundary linear b«^ 



20 

tween our respective states, nothing was farther from m 
intention or ejqiectation, than to become involved in a cor- 
respondence of the character this has assumed. With that 
invitation my authority was at an end, unless Virginia had 
accepted, or until she should accept, the ofi'er of Maryland 
for the settlement of the controversy, on the basis proposed 
by our resolutions of December session 1831; and I have al- 
ready informed you that upon being satisfied of such accept- 
ance, it would have become my duty, which I should have 
taken pleasure in performing, to appoint commissioners to 
meet those pt Virginia for conducting the negotiation. 

Your Excellency,in remarking upon that part of my letter 
of the Slst of October which expressed my regret tliat you 
had declined making an exposition of the Virginia act of 
the 5th of March 1833, says, "that you are not aware that 
any such exposition had been sought by me; or that I had 
expressed any doubt as to the true intent and meaning of 
that act." Now it may be true, as you state, that I have 
not sought an exposition of the act in question: it is certain 
that I have not directly asked it of your Excellency; nor have 
I expressed, for myself, any doubt as to the true intent and 
jneaning of that act; but I must, most lamentably, have failed 
to execute my own intentions, as well as those of the Legis- 
lature, if your Excellency is yet to learn, that the construc- 
tion put upon that act by Maryland and yourself, materially 
differed, and that an explanation of your views in relation to 
it, was expected, and would be received with pleasure. 
Our construction of it was frankly made known lo you, in 
language of no equivocal import. L^ t me recall to your Ex- 
callency's mind, the intimations you have received upon the 
pubject, 

The report of the special committee of our house of Del- 
egates, at thejast session, which was adopted by the Gen-, 
eral Assembly, and transmitted to your Excellency, with my 
invitation for re-opening negotiation, distinctly apprised you 
that the Legislature supposed they had your authority for 
saying, "that the determination of Maryland to seek a deci- 
sion of her rights by th<; judicial authority of the union, was 
probably occasioned by a misapprehension of the terms of 
that act of Virginia* Vihich was susceptible of satisfactory ex- 
planatiQn^ now. (then) only mthhdd, and with regreU be- 
cause the attitude of Maryland is, (was) regarded as hostile? 
pr menacing.'' |o my letter of the 16th of October I said;i 
"tb&t th9 report recently transmitted to you has made yoi; 



21 

acquainted with the grounds, motives and objects of our 
Legislature in repealing the resolutions ot December ses- 
sion 1833, and authorizing a re-opening of negotiation;" that 
"it is most obvious from the whole scope and tenor of the 
report, that to afford your Excellency an opportunity and fit 
occasion, to explain the law of Virginia, and shew that we 
had misapprehended its terms, and that it was intended as 
an acceptance of the propositions contained in our resolu- 
tions of December session 1831, (which it was supposed 
you considered yourself authorised and prepared to do,) was 
an important object and persuasive motive for re-openmg ne- 
gotiation, upon the subject;" that "I confess my disappoint- 
ment and regret at finding, upon a perusal of your commu- 
nication, that you have not thought fit to favour us with the 
expected explanation;" and after noticing and admitting your 
disclaimer of authority, "to enter into any new negotiation 
in regard to the matter,"! added, "I shall, however, receive 
"with pleasure, any exposition your Excellency may thinkpro- 
per to give to the act in question." Now 1 am not disposed 
to enter into a veibal criticism with your Excellency, but if I 
have not sought an explanation of the act in question, I can- 
not but believe that you have been very intelligibly apprised, 
that an exposition of it was looked for, and expected from 
you, and of the grounds upon which that expectation was 
entertained. 

Your Excellency insists, notwithstanding my disclaim- 
er, that the umpirage proposed by Maryland, in the Reso- 
luMons of December session 1831, constitute a condition 
precedent to to the negotiation which we had proposed to 
renew. 

In this state of the matter, I have nothing left but to re- 
peat, in the most explicit'manner, that I have not submitted 
the acceptance of the proposed umpirage as a presemptory 
Bine qua non to negotiation, between the Staters, on this sub- 
ject, and to propose to refer to our respective Legislatures 
the question at issue between us upon this point. 

I supposed I could not be mistaken as to your Excsllency's 
familiarity ivith precedents for the proposed umpirage, in 
the diplomatic history of the United State*. A single Treaty 
— that of Ghent with Great Britain — contains provisions for 
four different umpirages, so fully in point to sustain that 
proposed by Maryland to Virginia, that ecen the talents and 
ingenuity of youv Excellency, great as they are generally 
Jjnowjti, and freely admitted by me to be, I feel confident, 



22 

would be exerted in vain in any attempt to shake their auo 
thority in our favour. 

Your Excellency has been pleased to say that ^'Virginia 
has in vain called upon Maryland to state to her, precisely, 
what it is she claims, and upon what foundation her claims 
rest," that, "without ansvveringfthese enquiries, excepti n the 
most general terms, Maryland says to Virginia, 1 propose to 
submit this yet unknown question, involving unknown inte- 
rests, to the umpirage of an unknown arbiter, who is to be 
governed by no prescribed rules, and may be guided by any 
unknown evidence, and unknown arguments, to be hereafter 
exhibited." 

It is painful to me to be compelled, so often in this cor- 
respondence, to take issue with your Excellency upon the ac- 
curacy of your statements, but as you leave me no other al- 
ternative for the vindication of Maryland, Irom the erroneous 
and injurious allegations of your Excellency — imputing to 
her the most preposterous course ol conduct — the duty must 
be performed. Your representation — or rather caricature — 
of her conduct towards Virginia, is disowned and repudiat- 
ed. Virginia has woi in vain "called upon Maryland to 
state to her, precisely, what it is she claims, rind upon what 
foundation her claims rest." On the contrary, Maryland, 
without being called upon by Virginia, in the report which 
was adopted with, and which accompanied (he resolutions of 
December session 1831, so often referred to, stated to Vir- 
ginia, with the greatest precision and clearness, what it is 
she claims, and upon what foundation her claims rest; and en- 
forced them by arguments of such intrinsic merit and res-r- 
sistless force — so conclusive and unanswerable — that to 
this day, not even an attempt has been made, in any of the 
various communications received from Virginia, to answer 
ithem. 

As it seems to have been upon your own representation 
of '-the relative situation of the two high parties," that you 
have called in question the redprocity of the proposed um- 
pirage, and as I have shown that representation not to be 
correct, the reciprocity, so plain upon the face of the um- 
pirage, is believed to be sutiiciently vindicated. Its equality 
you admit, but the justness and propriety of your attempt 
to liken to any mere chance, the reference proposed, in a cer- 
tain contingency, of the decision of grave and important 
rights and interests, to an umpire to be appointed by the 
Governor of a sister State, is not within my comprehension. 



23 

But you say that "something more than equality, and re- 
ciprocity (if that could be found in the proposition) is gen- 
erally considered as desirable in the establishment of any 
forum," in a way stron<2;l}' inlimating that these (if admitted) 
are the only recommendations, or suitable characteristics, of 
the proposed umpirage. 

Is this a just representation of the character of an um- 
pirage under the auspices of the chief magistrate of a sister 
State? Are all notions of wisdom, knowledge, justice, and 
impartiality, without its pale? 

Maryland, Sir, has not been guilty of the folly of pro- 
posing to refer the decision of such questions as are depend- 
ing between Virginia and herself, to a tribunal having no 
other recommendations than those of equality and reciproci- 
ty. On the contrary, I maintain that the proposed umpirage 
has every characteristic which appertains, and ought to be- 
long to, a tribunal of last resort, and is deserving of the 
highest respect and confidence. 

In conclusion, and in reply to the last paragraph of yaur 
letter, I again repeat that when Maryland proposed to Vir- 
ginia the "feasible plan," contained in the resolutions of 
December session, 1831 , for settling the controversy between 
them relative to their dividing boundary lines, she accom* 
panied her proposal by a precise and perspicuous statement 
of her claims, and of evidence relied on to sustain them,, 
and by arguments, difficult, if not impossible, to be success- 
fully resisted, and which to this day remain unanswered;, 
that Maryland still desires to settle her controversy with 
Virginia, upon this "feasible plan;" which however she has. 
not proposed as a sine qua non to negotiation, on the sub- 
ject; that I am still anxious to see this controversy terminat- 
ed by amicable negotiation, either upon that, or any other 
proper and "feasible plan," which may be pfjpposed by, or ^^ 
which would be ragre acceptable to, Virgijfc; and that, m 
these sentiments, I cannot doubt having t^nioncurrence of 
the people and all the other authorities of Maryland; and I 
bpg leave to add that I anticipate with great pleasure that 
the Legislatures of our respective States, when we shall 
have remitted to them the management of this controversy, 
will be found to accord in their views much better than your 
Excellency and myself have done. 

It is alike due to your Excellency and myself, to state that 
my absence from the seat of government, and severe and 



24 



protracted indisposition have prevented me from answering 
your last communicatioQ at an earlier period. 
With the highest consideration, 

I have the honor to remain, 
Your Excellency's most ob't. serv't. 

JAMES THOMAS. 
His Excellency, 

Littleton W. Tazewell, 
Governor of Virginia, 
Richmond. 



From Governor Tazewell j to Governor Thomas, 



Executive Department, 
Richmond, December 29th, 1835, 
Sir, 

I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your 
Excellency's letter ot the 24th inst. which I have submitted 
to the General Assembly of Virginia, now in session, to- 
gether with all the other correspondence between us con- 
cerning the subject to which your last letter refers. 

I reciprocate, vvith great cordiality, the wish expressed by 
your Excellency, that the views of this controversy, that 
may be taken by the Legislatures of our respective States, 
may be found to accord better than those of your Excellency 
and myself. 

I have the honor to be, 

Very respectfully, 
I Your Excellency's | 
H Most obedient seyant, 
T^ LITTLETONV. TAZEWELL. 
To His ExcenRcy, 
James Thomas, 

Governor of Maryland. 



LSSr ...^'^ <^ONGRESS 




014 369 343 



014 



HBRARV OF CONGRESS 




014 369 343 



